Part of
Mobilizing Others: Grammar and lexis within larger activities
Edited by Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Emma Betz and Peter Golato
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 33] 2020
► pp. 115146
References
Antaki, Charles
2002 “ ‘Lovely’: Turn-Initial High-Grade Assessments in Telephone Closings.” Discourse Studies 4: 5–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, and Mark Rapley
2000 “ ‘Brilliant. Next Question…’: High-Grade Assessment Sequences in the Completion of Interactional Units.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33: 235–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1987 “Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different.” Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, Mathias, Jakob Cromdal, and Lena Levin
2017 “Starting Out as a Driver: Progression in Instructed Pedal Work. In Memory Practices and Learning: Interactional, Institutional and Sociocultural Perspectives, ed. by Åsa Mäkitalo, Per Linell, and R. Säljö, 113–142. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Broth, Mathias, and Leelo Keevallik
2014 “Getting Ready to Move as a Couple: Accomplishing Mobile Formations in a Dance Class.” Space and Culture 17: 107–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
1987 [1978]Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
1999 “On Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 881–909. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1979 “Responding to Indirect Speech Acts.” Cognitive Psychology 11: 430–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
2016Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter
2010 “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12: 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, Tracy S., and Paul Drew
2008 “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41: 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2015 “When Recipient Design Fails: Egocentric Turn-Design of Instructions in Driving School Lessons Leading to Breakdowns of Intersubjectivity. Gesprächsforschung 16: 63–101.Google Scholar
2018 “Instruction Practices in German Driving Lessons: Differential Uses of Declaratives and Imperatives.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics: 1–18.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Danièle Gazin
2014 “Instructional Sequences in Driving Lessons: Mobile Participants and the Temporal and Sequential Organization of Actions. Journal of Pragmatics 65: 63–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino
2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur
2015 “Clients’ Resistance to Therapists’ Proposals: Managing Epistemic and Deontic Status.” Journal of Pragmatics 90: 12–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan
1976 “Is Sybil There? The Structure of Some American English Directives. Language in Society 5: 25–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2017 “In the Face of Resistance: A Finnish Practice for Insisting on Imperatively Formatted Directives.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 215–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, John, Brian Davies, and Emma Rich
2009The body made flesh: embodied learning and the corporeal device. British Journal of Sociology of Education 30: 391–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1980 “Conversational Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 4: 341–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990 “Perspectives on Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Asta Cekaite
2013 “Calibration in Directive/Response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46: 122–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Orchestrating Directive Trajectories in Communicative Projects in Family Interaction.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Paul Drew, 185–214. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho
2004Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, Jon, Lewis Hyland, and Avijit Banerjee
2014 “Work to Make Simulation Work: “Realism,” Instructional Correction and the Body in Training.” Discourse Studies, 16: 247–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane, and Gabriele Kasper
1981 “Politeness Markers in English and German.” In Conversational Routines: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 157–185. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine
2014Imperatives. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L.
2010Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4): 401–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., and Paul Drew
2016 “Recruitment: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, Alexandra
2012 “Responding to Directives: What Can Children Do When a Parent Tells Them What to Do?” In Disputes in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People, ed. by Maryanne Theobold, and Susan Danby, 57–84. Bingley, UK: Emerald Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, Alexandra, and Kobin H. Kendrick
2016 “Imperative Directives: Orientations to Accountability.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49: 272–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1973 “The Logic of Politeness: Or, Minding Your P’s and Q’s.” In Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305.Google Scholar
Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby, Pål Gulbrandsen, and Jan Svennevig
2015 “Whose Decision? Negotiating Epistemic and Deontic Rights in Medical Treatment Decisions.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 54–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lappalainen, Hanna
2008 “Kelan virkailijoiden henkilötunnuspyynnöt: Tutkimus rutiininomaisista toiminnoista. [Asking for Clients’ Identity Number or Identity Card at Finnish Social Security offices: A Study of Routinized Activities.]” Virittäjä 112: 483–517.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.
1995 “Turn Design and the Organization of Participation in Instructional Activities.” Discourse Processes 19: 111–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna, and Ann Weatherall
2015 “Orientations to Epistemics and Deontics in Treatment Discussions.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macbeth, Douglas H.
1991 “Teacher Authority as Practical Action.” Linguistics and Education 3: 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McHoul, Alexander
1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7: 183–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, Hugh
1979Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlino, Sara
2014 “Singing in ‘Another’ Language: How Pronunciation Matters in the Organisation of Choral Rehearsals.” Social Semiotics 24: 420–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2003Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2014 “Requesting Immediate Action in the Surgical Operating Room: Time, Embodied Resources and Praxeological Embeddedness.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 269–302. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nevile, Maurice
2004 “Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims about Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 447–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishizaka, Aug
2006 “What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39: 119–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parton, Katharine
2014Epistemic stance in orchestral interaction. Social Semiotics 24: 402–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Psathas, George
1995Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reed, Darren, and Beatrice Szczepek Reed
2014 “The Emergence of Learnables in Music Masterclasses.” Social Semiotics 24: 446–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni
2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouhikoski, Anu
2015 ”Laita, laitatko vai laitat? Kolmen direktiivirakenteen variaatio asiakaspalvelutilanteessa. [Imperative, Interrogative or 2nd-Person Declarative? Variation of Three Directive Constructions in Service Encounters].” Virittäjä 2(2015): 189–222.Google Scholar
Sahlström, J. Fritjof
2002 “The Interactional Organization of Hand Raising in Classroom Interaction.” The Journal of Classroom Interaction 37: 47–57.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
(eds) 2013Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2010Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
2010 “ ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’ Communicative Acts in Semiotic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 337–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 “Lääkärin ohjeet. [Doctor’s Instructions].” In Keskustelu lääkärin vastaanotolla [Conversation during doctor’s consultation], ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Anssi Peräkylä, and Kari Eskola, 89–111. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Hanna Lappalainen
2009 ”’Mä otan tän’. Käynnin syyn esittämisen tavat kioskilla. [‘I’ll have this’. Presenting one’s reason for the visit at convenience store].” In Kieli kioskilla: Tutkimuksia kioskiasioinnin rutiineista. [Talk at Convenience Store. Studies on the Routines in Convenience Store Encounters], ed. by Hanna Lappalainen, and Liisa Raevaara, 90–119. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Heidi Vepsäläinen
2016 “The Finnish No .” In NU and NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 243–280. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2017Imperative turns at talk: An introduction. In Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
2011 “Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt) 52. [URL]
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Chiara Monzoni
2016 “On the Hierarchy of Interactional Resources: Embodied and Verbal Behavior in the Management of Joint Activities with Material Objects.” Journal of Pragmatics 103: 15–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
2017 “Managing Compliance in Violin Instruction: The Case of the Finnish Clitic Particles -pa and -pAs in Imperatives and Hortatives.” In Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 357–380. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Social deontics: A nano-level approach to human power play.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society 35: 367–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano
2010 “Mobilising Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, Darren Reed, and Elizabeth Haddon
2013 “NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating Restarts in the Pursuits of Learnables in Vocal Masterclasses.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46: 22–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veronesi, Daniela
2014 “Correction Sequences and Semiotic Resources in Ensemble Music Workshops: The Case of Conduction®.” Social Semiotics 24: 468–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard
2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weeks, Peter
1996A Rehearsal of a Beethoven Passage: An Analysis of Correction Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29: 247–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
West, Candace
1990 “Not Just ‘Doctors’ Orders’: Directive-Response Sequences in Patients’ Visits to Women and Men Physicians.” Discourse and Society 1: 85–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J.
1997Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yli-Vakkuri, Valma
1986Suomen kieliopillisten muotojen toissijainen käyttö. [Secondary Uses of Finnish Grammatical Forms]. Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics 28. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Zemel, Alan, and Timothy Koschmann
2011 “Pursuing a Question: Reinitiating IRE Sequences as a Method of Instruction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 475–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann
2011 “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: The Case of Polish Trzeba X (“One Needs to X”).” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44: 263–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Giovanni Rossi
2016 “Assistance and Other Forms of Cooperative Engagement.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49: 20–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann
2013 “Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46: 256–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Messner, Monika
2022. “Abbiamo detto con te no che tu hai ta da di da dim (Moves Right Hand on the Beat)”—The Interplay of Semiotic Modes in Chamber Music Lessons Under a Multimodal and Interactional Perspective. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Montiegel, Kristella
2022. Teachers’ gestures for building listening and spoken language skills. Discourse Processes 59:10  pp. 771 ff. DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa
2021. Monitoring and evaluating body knowledge: metaphors and metonymies of body position in children’s music instrument instruction. Linguistics Vanguard 7:s4 DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa
2021. Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice
2023. ‘Go on keep going’: The instruction of sustained embodied activities. Discourse Studies 25:5  pp. 692 ff. DOI logo
Vatanen, Anna
2023. Embodied Noticings as Repair Initiations: On Multiactivity in Choir Rehearsals. In Complexity of Interaction,  pp. 99 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 january 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.